In this paper, I argue for a distinction between two scales of coordination in scientific inquiry, through which I reassess Georg Simon Ohm's work on conductivity and resistance. Firstly, I propose to distinguish between measurement coordination, which refers to the specific problem of how to justify the attribution of values to a quantity by using a certain measurement procedure, and general coordination, which refers to the broader issue of justifying the representation of an empirical regularity by means of abstract mathematical tools. Secondly, I argue that the development of Ohm's measurement practice between the first and the second experimental phase of his work involved the change of the measurement coordination on which he relied to express his empirical results. By showing how Ohm relied on different calibration assumptions and practices across the two phases, I demonstrate that the concurrent change of both Ohm's experimental apparatus and the variable that Ohm measured should be viewed based on the different form of measurement coordination. Finally, I argue that Ohm's assumption that tension is equally distributed in the circuit is best understood as part of the general coordination between Ohm's law and the empirical regularity that it expresses, rather than measurement coordination.

在本文中，我主张区分科学探究中的两种协调尺度，并通过它重新评估 Georg Simon Ohm 在电导率和电阻方面的工作。首先，我建议区分测量协调，指的是如何通过使用特定的测量程序来证明值归属于一个量的具体问题，和一般协调，指的是证明一个更广泛的问题的表示。通过抽象数学工具的经验规律。其次，我认为欧姆在他工作的第一和第二实验阶段之间的测量实践的发展涉及他用来表达他的经验结果的测量协调的变化。通过展示欧姆如何在两个阶段依赖不同的校准假设和实践，我证明了欧姆的实验装置和欧姆测量的变量的同时变化应该基于不同形式的测量协调来看待。最后，我认为欧姆关于张力在电路中均匀分布的假设最好理解为欧姆定律与其所表达的经验规律之间的一般协调的一部分，而不是测量协调。